Legal Opinion
W. C. Humphreys, Inc. v. Zurich Insurance
New York Supreme Court
Decided July 17, 1967PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMatthew J. Jasen, J.
Defendant, Federspiel & Truax Agency, Inc., moves against plaintiff’s amended complaint upon the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.
The complaint sets forth four causes of action. The plaintiff concedes that only the THIRD cause of action is applicable to the movant.
This action is predicated upon a contract of insurance issued and delivered to the plaintiff on September 4, 1962, by Monroe J. Federspiel, as agent for defendant, Zurich Insurance Company. Coverage under the terms of the fire insurance policy was limited to $40,000. Subsequently, on January 14, 1963, Mr.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Metzger v. . &198tna Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Gibbs v. Home InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
- Gibbs v. Home Ins., N.Y., Archibald TaylorNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
3Cited by4 opinions
- Austin v. Fulton Insurance CompanyAlaska Supreme Court · 1972
- Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. v. Vigilant InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1993
- American Mutual Services Corp. v. United States Liability InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1968
- Sterner v. BalcomNew York Supreme Court · 1988